On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 02:13:30PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Anthony Green wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 11:14 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>That said, I think that to be fair, we need to distinguish between
> >>"using" in the sense of what GCC is doing - a tool outside the scope
> >>of effort of the project enabling some behavior in a standard and
> >>non-
> >>intrusive way (just like we don't care about the license of the OS we
> >>run on), and "using" in the sense of developers of a project making a
> >>conscious decision to design and implement software with a
> >>dependency.
> >
> >This is wrong thinking. You aren't simply "using" the libgcc
> >routines,
> >as you would OS resources. You are linking your application to the
> >libgcc library and redistributing the resulting combined binary.
> >This
> >is precisely what the license talks about and enables.
>
> Ok - while it's not exactly the same, the fundamental point I was
> trying to make is sound, I think, in that in writing my program, I am
> not at all thinking "hey, I'll use stuff from libgcc". I'm just
> writing a C program. After that, compiling and creating the
> executable is a second independent step - the receiver of the
> software has no burden to switch compilers wrt libgcc.
He is talking about the binary, you're talking about the source. Reread
what he said with that in mind, and it should become obvious that you
are both right, since you are talking past him ;) But with respect to
ASF's (legally fine, just aparently ruffling a few feathers among less
C-aware members) usage of GPL+linked exception licensed code from gcc,
Anthony is correct, there is no doubt about it. Check out the gcc
changelogs, and you will find that he knows very well what he's
talking about with respect to gcc.
>
> The license needs to allow this, or using it would be a non-starter.
>
> >
> >Whether or not you make a distinction between this kind of GPL
> >+exception
> >usage and libstdc++ or GNU Classpath usage hardly matters, since the
> >licenses themselves don't make a distinction.
>
> That would only be true if there is a standard interface / component
> model for the classlibrary so that there can be competing
> implementations and users have the ability to switch from one
> implementation to another without significant burden in the event
> they wish to make changes, additions or enhancements, and have the
> freedom to choose what they do with their work.
>
> That's why I think that the our componentization efforts are so
> important.
You seem to have narrowly missed what Anthony said, and went on
a defensive tangent instead ;)
You don't have to defend the usage of GPL+linking
exception licensed code by the Apache Software Foundation, all of us
non-Luddites here agree that the GPL+linking exception works as it
should and the binaries shipped by the ASF are fine.
This stuff is easy, and pretty obvious to anyone with a dissasembler,
and/or insight about C compilers, so let's have the same rules that
allow httpd to ship their binaries using/incorporating
GPL+linking exception licensed code, ASF's flagship product, after
all, be officially ratified, as they'd allow us to do the same.
Is there something left that would speak against using GNU Classpath
in Harmony, after we have established as a fact that the ASF is indeed
happily distributing code using code under the same sort of licenses
and has been doing so for years?
If not, then let's do it.
cheers,
dalibor topic
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geir@optonline.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>